Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Microsoft: Closed source is more secure
From: Ben_Tilly@trepp.com
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 10:05:28 -0400


Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> On Thursday 26 April 2001 06:02, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> wrote:
[...]
> > What is the problem with djbdns (apart from the fact that it is
> > not Free Software)?
>
> (a) personality of the author as seen in Internet postings (usenet/web
pages)

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

> (b) poor documentation, if qmail is any indicator

That has been used as a business opportunity before.

> (c) odd way of writing source code, if qmail is any indicator

You mean securely?

The usual ways of writing C imply that you will be fighting buffer
overflows forever.  But this odd way of writing C doesn't suffer
from that...

> (d) odd build process, if qmail is any indicator

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

> (e) odd license and infrequent updates to official source (if qmail ....),

Yeah, that one bothers me as well.  But what works...

>  which exacerbate the effects of b,c, and d.

I note that security is not on your list of reasons not to use the
package.  I note that security is a huge issue for bind.  What are
your priorities?

Cheers,
Ben